A less government conservative Republican from Livingston County, MI
Opinions on this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Livingston County Republican Party.
Chairman of LCRP since January 2013

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Freedomworks (Formerly known as CSE - Citizens for a Sound Economy) is having a FREE event in Livonia. I was asked by Randall Thompson to pass this information along to the readers. I clipped off his phone number, but his email is there.

This one is at NO cost this Friday outside of a drive. I'm going to try and make this one since I've never heard George Allen speak.

Big Event. This one is different. No dinner. No cost. Just a chance to meet someone who may be the leader of the free world one day soon. One hour. All are welcome.

Please try and let me know if you are coming and how many you might bring with you. Please open the the event flyer and National Journal Article that I have attached to this email. It is very enlightening.

I can't urge you enough to come out to this and bring 5 friends - or at least send this email to your directory of contacts to see if they might be interested in attending.

Please join us in welcoming United States Senator George Allen to Michigan. In yet another installment of FreedomWorks speaker’s series, we present Senator Allen; a leading voice at our nation’s capital for tax reduction, economic growth and promoting the free enterprise philosophy. Join us.

"""WASHINGTON - Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. became the nation's 110th Supreme Court justice on Tuesday, confirmed with the most partisan victory in modern history after a fierce battle over the future direction of the high court.

The Senate voted 58-42 to confirm Alito — a former federal appellate judge, U.S. attorney, and conservative lawyer for the Reagan administration from New Jersey — as the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a moderate swing vote on the court."""

The final tally was 58-42. I'm waiting on the roll call tally, but four democrats crossed party lines, and Lincoln Chafee crossed for the GOP.

Carl Levin (who doesn't even live in Michigan anymore) and Debbie Stabenow tried to fillibuster this, so they surely voted no as well.

That upsets Poplar, who is trying to work with community leaders on stopping the violence plaguing Flint residents, especially young people.

She said she'd like to ask merchants, "How can you sleep at night?""""

I grew up watching Steven Seagal movies. I never threw a knife at anybody. I never shot anyone and yelled "Yippee Kai Aye" (bleep) after watching the Die Hard movies. Goodfellas, Casino and Tombstone were three of the most popular movies when I was a teenager. We all saw that. We didn't shoot each other. Scarface was around then too - for 10 years. We all saw that too - and never shot anyone while telling them to "say hello to my little friend." They are movies. They are entertainment. Escapism from the real world.

"""""The only true part is you're going to die," Poplar said. "A lot of parents in the city need to realize the preacher and the teacher is not the role model, it's a movie, and if you haven't seen the jacket, they're all over town.""""

What happened to Tony in the end? Who won? Sorry for the spoiler to those who haven't seen the movie, but I'll just say that if there's a "Scarface II" someday, it will be a prequel and not a sequel.

"""Poplar would like to see Flint schools ban the clothing and merchants sell the items only behind the counter with an age limit. She said parents and grandparents need to know the message "Scarface" presents.

"This is causing a lot of the shooting in our city," she said. "This is their role model. It's not Martin Luther King. It's not even Elvis Presley. It's Al Pacino. They weren't even born (when the movie came out). " It's absolutely crazy.""""

Yeah....Al Pacino left the Miami TV screen and shot everyone in Flint. Riiiiiiight. Movies don't kill people, people kill people. The way to stop shootings is to stop the shooters - people.

In response to this nanny state feel good motion, I have this quote from Tony Montana.

"I kill a Communist for fun, but for a greencard I'm gonna carve'm up real nice"

"""County Republicans to go head to headGodchaux wants seat in U.S. House

January 25, 2006

BY KATHLEEN GRAY

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERFormer state Rep. Patricia (Pan) Godchaux, a moderate Republican from Birmingham, said Tuesday that she'll make a long-shot bid to take on incumbent U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg, a Bloomfield Hills Republican, in the GOP's August primary.

"The numbers in the district are showing us that the district is more moderate than he is, and I'm more moderate than he is," Godchaux, 59, said Tuesday"""

This is not good news for Knollenberg. He's won tough races by easy margins before, but this is another matter.

The district is completely in Oakland County, and is a 51/49 Bush district.

Besides Bob Parker, Richard Trost and Jay Drick are strongly considering a run for judgeship, and were at a State Bar Candidate seminar which covers ethics rules, campaign finance laws, and related matters. Do not be surprised if they jump in for one of the positions, especially if there is a vacancy from an incumbent. Parker and Drick both recently ran for judge in 2004. Currently, I do not know anything about Richard Trost.

The only incumbent so far confirmed for election run is recently appointed Theresa Brennan. She was also at the State Bar Candidate seminar.

As soon as we know more about the Livingston County Judicial Situation, we will keep you posted.

Brian Anderson hit a home run with this editorial in the Wall Street Journal. I excepted it, but everyone should read the entire thing. It's scary as hell.

"""""""Shut Up, They Explained The left's regulatory war against free speech. Shut Up, They Explained The left's regulatory war against free speech.

BY BRIAN C. ANDERSON Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

The rise of alternative media--political talk radio in the 1980s, cable news in the '90s, and the blogosphere in the new millennium--has broken the liberal monopoly over news and opinion outlets. The left understands acutely the implications of this revolution, blaming much of the Democratic Party's current electoral trouble on the influence of the new media's vigorous conservative voices. Instead of fighting back with ideas, however, today's liberals quietly, relentlessly and illiberally are working to smother this flourishing universe of political discourse under a tangle of campaign-finance and media regulations. Their campaign represents the most sustained attack on free political speech in the United States since the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. Though Republicans have the most to lose in the short run, all Americans who care about our most fundamental rights and the civic health of our democracy need to understand what's going on--and resist it."""""

"""Mr. Treglia urged grantees to keep Pew's role hush-hush. "If Congress thought this was a Pew effort," he confided, "it'd be worthless. It'd be 20 million bucks thrown down the drain." At one point, late in the congressional debate over McCain-Feingold, "we had a scare," Mr. Treglia said. "George Will stumbled across a report we had done. . . . He started to reference the fact that Pew was playing a large role . . . [and] that it was a liberal attempt to hoodwink Congress. . . . The good news, from my perspective, was that journalists . . . just didn't care and nobody followed up." The hoaxers--a conspiracy of eight left-wing foundations, including George Soros's Open Society Institute and the Ford Foundation--have actually spent $123 million trying to get other people's money out of politics since 1994, Mr. Sager reports--nearly 90% of the spending by the entire campaign-finance lobby over this period.""""

And now, John McCain and the rest of the anti-freedom statists are after the blogsphere.

"""""Campaign-finance reform now has the blogosphere in its crosshairs. When the Federal Election Commission wrote specific rules in 2002 to implement McCain-Feingold, it voted 4-2 to exempt the Web. After all, observed the majority of three Republicans and one Democrat (the agency divides its seats evenly between the two parties), Congress didn't list the Internet among the "public communications"--everything from television to roadside billboards--that the FEC should regulate. Further, "the Internet is virtually a limitless resource, where the speech of one person does not interfere with the speech of anyone else," reasoned Republican commissioner Michael Toner. "Whereas campaign finance regulation is meant to ensure that money in politics does not corrupt candidates or officeholders, or create the appearance thereof, such rationales cannot plausibly be applied to the Internet, where on-line activists can communicate about politics with millions of people at little or no cost."But when the chief House architects of campaign-finance reform, joined bySens. McCain and Russ Feingold, sued--claiming that the Internet was one big "loophole" that allowed big money to keep on corrupting--a federal judge agreed, ordering the FEC to clamp down on Web politics. Then-commissioner Bradley Smith and the two other Republicans on the FEC couldn't persuade their Democratic colleagues to vote to appeal.

The FEC thus has plunged into what Smith calls a "bizarre" rule-making process that could shackle the political blogosphere. This would be a particular disaster for the right, which has maintained its early advantage over the left in the blogosphere, despite the emergence of big liberal sites like Daily Kos. Some 157 of the top 250 political blogs express right-leaning views, a recent liberal survey found. Reaching a growing and influential audience--hundreds of thousands of readers weekly (including most journalists) for the top conservative sites--the blogosphere has enabled the right to counter the biases of the liberal media mainstream. Without the blogosphere, Howell Raines would still be the New York Times' editor, Dan Rather would only now be retiring, garlanded with praise--and John Kerry might be president of the U.S., assuming that CBS News had gotten away with its falsehood about President Bush's military service that the diligent bloggers at PowerLine, LittleGreenFootballs and other sites swiftly debunked.""""""

Well, if McCain's buddy bureaucrats want to pick a fight with me after I kick his arse out of Michigan in 2008, I'll give them one. All the way to the Roberts/Alito Supreme Court.

The Fairness Doctrine is threatening to make a comeback as well. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D) of New York makes this arrogant comment about too much freedom. The Fairness Doctrine regulated political speech.

Small wonder, then, that House Democrats proposed two bills in 2005 to bring the Fairness Doctrine back--and as a law, rather than a mere regulation. Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York, who introduced the first of the two bills, says that right-ruled radio is a grave threat to American freedoms, "a waste of good broadcast time, and a waste of our airwaves." People "may hear whatever they please and whatever they choose," she tells PBS's Bill Moyers, in a statement as incoherent as it is illiberal. "And of course they have the right to turn it off. But that's not good enough either. The fact is that they need the responsibility of the people who are licensed to use our airwaves judiciously and responsibly to call them to account if they don't." In other words, people can't be trusted with freedom but need the supervision of a paternalist government.

Hanoi John Kerry also chimes in.

"""There has been a profound and negative change in the relationship of America's media with America's people," John Kerry told the Boston Globe's Thomas Oliphant after losing the 2004 presidential race. "We learned that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning," he said, inaccurately. "But there's a . . . submedia that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information," he complained. "This all began, incidentally, when the Fairness Doctrine ended," Mr. Kerry maintained. "You would have had a dramatic change in the discussion in this country had we still had a Fairness Doctrine in the course of the last campaign."""

You mean Dan Rather the liar? Or Jayson Blair and Fox Butterfield of the NY Times?

These are scary times for supporters of Free Speech. It is under dire threat by the left and a few RINOS. The establishment left especially despises blogs, talk radio, and non-beltway filtered media. Consistantly anti-freedom, these are usually the same people who oppose the Second Amendment. As Anderson points out, George Soros's prints are on this. These people like McCain, Slaughter, Kerry, and others will continue to be pushing to destroy the first amendment until they are destroyed politically.

They all need to be taken out election time. Our nation's freedom depends on it.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Debbie Stabenow once again says "how high" when her Los Angeles liberal donors tell her to jump.

That's about the only thing she does in the senate as she's written only one law in her 10 years of work in Washington. My source for that is the congressional record itself at Thomas.loc.gov There's a gold mine of information there on the voting record of our congressmen and senators. Here's Stabenow's one law.

S.1285 : A bill to designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, Michigan, as the "Rosa Parks Federal Building".

While I have no problem with that law, that's the ONLY law she's written in ten years. That's less than the number of wins Matt Millen has had in his worst year with the Lions.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of Matt Millen-style leadership in Michigan.

Monday, January 23, 2006

"""Restructuring to cut up to 30,000 manufacturing jobs and 4,000 salaried positions.

Ford Motor Co. today unveiled a sweeping North American restructuring plan that includes slashing up to 30,000 manufacturing jobs, cutting 4,000 salaried positions, and closing 14 factories, including an assembly plant in Wixom.

The long-awaited plan titled "Way Forward” is designed to return Ford's North American operations to profitability by 2008. Those operations posted a pre-tax loss of $1.6 billion last year, the company said.""""

This comes as no surprise, but it's sad to see. My dad's retired from Ford's, and other family members also work there.

Many Wixom workers commute from Livingston County so the fallout will hit here as well, particulary the Brighton area. That'll mean less money will be spent in the county, particulary restaurants and retail. More for sale signs will probably go up as well, lowering the tax base of the community. The suppliers are also going to be affected by this. It's simply bad news for Michigan. The trickle down effect will be noticed.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Open race for at least 1 Livingston judgeshipPlanned probate court retirement affects 1 of 4 seats up for election Friday, January 20, 2006BY TOM TOLEN News Staff Reporter For the first time since 1994, Livingston County voters will have four judgeships to decide in elections this fall.

The terms of 44th Circuit Judge Stanley Latreille, 53rd District Judge A. John Pikkarainen and Probate Judge Susan Reck will expire at the end of the year. Additionally, District Judge Theresa Brennan, who was appointed last year after the death of Judge Michael Hegarty, must now run for election for the remaining two years of his term.

Brennan, 48, confirms she will run for the seat. "I love my job here, and I hope to remain as district judge,'' she says.

Not enough attention is paid to judicial races. The most important contest for those concerned with liberal judicial activism is the Circuit Court race as they have the most power. Judge Latreille is a straight shooter who follows the law as judge, and he will have my vote if he runs again.

The Circuit Court seat should be conservatives' number one priority of all local races in Livingston County. They have a lot of power and handle all major cases and most injunctions. We do not need our own version of Stephen Reinhardt here.

District Courts have more limited roles. The district court handles small claims, civil cases under $25000, landlord/tenant, misdemeanors, felony arraignments, civil infractions, weddings, and divorces without children. Most of those are straightforward cases, and have less room for judicial activism.

Probate Court has jurisdiction and supervision in the administration of estates and trust of deceased persons. The Court also hears cases pertaining to guardianships; conservatorship for adults and minors; the commitment for hospitalization and or treatment of mentally ill persons, the mentally handicapped, and addicted persons.

Bob Parker and Bobbi Vaughn are running for probate judge. Parker ran and lost his race for circuit judge against Dave Reader in 2004. Vaughn is a Hamburg Township trustee and is a Republican.

As soon as I find out who has filed and running for re-election, it will be posted here.

Newaygo County and Oceana County are important for their impact on Gerry Van Woerkem's senate seat. Ogemaw is a swing/slightly democrat leaning county Up North. The democrats are making gains in marginal GOP Oceana and the Republicans are gaining in Ogemaw. Newaygo is solid GOP.

Win or lose, Mr. Shadegg's candidacy will be a measuring rod of just how much trouble congressional Republicans really think they're in. It will also serve as a leading indicator of whether House conservatives will devote the next nine months of this term to slamming the brakes on a domestic legislative policy that has careened off course. The era when Republicans promised to make government smaller and smarter by abolishing hundreds of obsolete federal agencies seems a distant memory now in this era of Bridges to Nowhere. In the last five years, Republicans have enacted the largest increase in entitlement spending in three decades, doubled the education budget, nearly tripled the number of earmarked spending projects, and turned a blind eye toward the corrosive culture of corruption on Capitol Hill that seems so eerily reminiscent of the final days of Democratic rule in the House. One wonders whether the young-gun conservatives in the House fully appreciate what's at stake here. Few current House members even remember that the first shots in the Republican Revolution of 1994 were fired in 1989, when upstart Newt Gingrich rallied the conservative troops in the House and shockingly defeated by one vote the Bob Michel machine candidate for minority whip (the No. 2 leadership perch). The conservatives for the first time in a generation had a foothold of power. Shortly thereafter, the power structure shifted again when free-marketer Dick Armey of Texas, a longtime backbencher in the House, evicted another old bull Republican from the leadership team, Jerry Lewis of California. (It's a sign of the party's lost bearings that Mr. Lewis, the epitome of so much of what's wrong with the congressional Republicans, has been made Appropriations Committee chairman and has been even talked about as belonging back in the leadership.)

The Armey-Gingrich political coups were instigated by a gang of rebellious House conservatives and triggered a domino effect of momentous political changes. For years, Republican House leaders had suffered from Stockholm syndrome, becoming subservient to their captors, the Democratic majority. That gave way to Messrs. Gingrich and Armey devising a D-Day-type battle plan for the hostile takeover of the House in the '94 midterms. Its Republicans ran on Reaganite economics and a reform agenda of bringing squeaky clean ethics to Capitol Hill in the wake of House Democratic banking and post office scandals. Delusional Democrats thought they could merely cover the reek of scandals with disinfectants and then move on--a catastrophic blunder that Republicans may now be in danger of repeating. House conservatives in alliance with ethics-minded GOP moderates intent on cleaning up the party's stained image are undoubtedly the force to prevent that from happening. But will they? The right-leaning Republican Study Committee has a decisive voting bloc to elevate one of their own to majority leader. Or they can cut separate deals to advance their own short-term political ambitions. Mike Pence, head of the House Republican Study Committee notes: "The political reality is that conservatives are the majority of the majority party in the House." Mr. Shadegg may not win this race, but if the conservatives don't embrace his message of reform and renewal, voters might demote them to majority of the minority

Sunday, January 15, 2006

This announcement may come as a surprise to some, and not so much of a surprise to others. Those who know me know I do not change endorsements very often, and never do so unless a candidate drops out.

At first, I was an early endorser of Keith Butler based on his visit to Livingston County and the early momentum of his campaign, which has largely evaporated. So what has changed and caused me to take his bumper sticker off my truck?

I don't want to go negative here, so I'll just say that those that I've talked to about my switch know the reasons why I decided to switch. Here I'll keep it positive and will mention why I am supporting Jerry Zandstra.

First, I received immediate response back from Jerry Zandstra’s campaign in my emails. Emails largely get lost in the pile. Jerry and most of his campaign staff do not know me, but still has taken the time to respond to a voter, even one who at the time endorsed another candidate. I have followed his campaign since Mackinac, and they all have shown themselves to be extremely hard workers and sustaining it over time. Anytime Jerry speaks to a crowd or to a party, he will discuss issues with every person in the room. If there is one “weakness” in his campaign, he will even go overtime and discuss issues without the “politicalspeak” for 10 minutes with one person. To many campaign managers, that is a weakness, but to me that is a strength.

A generic Post 9/11 “National Security is everything” republican can not win in Michigan right now for a major statewide office. Granted a generic democrat currently BARELY wins, but the only way a generic 9/11 Republican will beat Stabenow will be if Stabenow beats herself. She is going to run a populist style campaign downplaying her EMILY’S List roots and portraying herself as supporter of working families. Domestic policy almost always trumps foreign policy in the minds of voters, especially in non-presidential races. Sheriff Michael Bouchard has good credentials on security issues, but it will take more than that to win. He is the establishment candidate, and unfortunately, it is showing right now. I have not seen as much fire or excitement from his campaign as I have from Zandstra's. He currently looks like a candidate talked into running. I hope Bouchard emphasizes the economy more in his campaign.

Politics as usual is not popular right now, especially during spurts where emotions are running high among the public. The way to defeat Stabenow is to run on NEW ideas. We can not win with the same old song and dance. Nationalizing this election by tying our candidates to Bush is not going to work in our favor. Neither is “compassionate conservatives” aimed at the soccer moms in Oakland County. We still lost Oakland the last three times(2000, 2002, 2004), and it is easily countered with populism in Michigan, giving us losses or narrow wins in Macomb County, Monroe County, Shiawassee County, the UP, Northeastern Lower Michigan and Downriver Wayne County. The 2002 style national Republican does not work here, and will work less here, as 9/11 becomes a more distant memory.

We keep hitting a 47-48% plateau at the top of the ticket. Every recent statewide race we have lost outside of Levin was a 3-5% loss. Gore, Stabenow, Granholm, Kerry. How are we going to gain that 5%, without losing what we have?

The candidates are all conservative on most issues. There are some differences, but we do not have a RINO case here. Money matters in campaigns, but eventually there are diminishing returns. Outside organizations will be here too. The NRA will be here. Right to Life will be here. All three candidates are pro-2nd amendment and pro-life. On the dems side, Union Leadership and Emily’s List will be here. When it gets to high millions, it loses the same effectiveness – especially in an era of “These ads are all BS anyway.”

The time is right for a true outsider. Jerry Zandstra is that candidate. While he is a social conservative, fiscal issues are top priority in this race. Jerry grew up in NW Indiana watching the collapse of the steel industry and is seeing the same thing happen to our auto industry. He sees how our tax structure (let alone taxes themselves) putting us at a competitive disadvantage with our manufacturing industries. He is a proponent of tort reforms, which are sorely needed both statewide and nationally. The Federal Government is in the way of economic success, especially in Michigan, and that needs to change.

Jerry is a leader, not a follower. He is a leader at the Acton Institute as the director of programs. He does not hide his views or give the usual “politicalspeak” in his answers. His positions are out there on his website for all to see. I do not agree with him on everything, but his views and advocacy on the tax structure, tort reform, and health care reform, as well as his positions on life issues and the 2nd amendment, are enough to gain my endorsement. The way his campaign keeps its word, secures my endorsement. I encourage everyone reading to check out Jerry's stances on his issues. He explains it much better than I can.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Six candidates want to fill an opening in the Michigan Senate that represents most of Ingham County.

Three Democrats and three Republicans turned in the required paperwork by Tuesday's deadline to run in a special election for the 23rd Senate District opened by the departure of Sen. Virg Bernero, a Democrat who became the mayor of Lansing earlier this month.

The special primary elections are scheduled for Feb. 21 and the special election is set for March 14.

The Democrats are: state Rep. Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing, Lansing businesswoman Melissa Sue Robinson and Anthony Benavides of Dansville, the nephew of former Lansing mayor Tony Benavides.

The Republican candidates are Okemos attorney Vincent Green, John Findlay of Mason and Lance Kingsbury of Holt.

Robinson, who used to be a man, must have her current name and former name, Charles Edward Staelens Jr., listed on the primary ballot because state law requires a candidate's former name to be listed on the ballot if it has been changed within 10 years. The law doesn't apply to women who change their name because of marriage or divorce.

I expect to see a Green/Whitmer matchup, but Benevides and Robinson may make the primary interesting. I'd like to see Whitmer knocked out in the primary.

I don't often agree with editorials from the Detroit Free Press, but I do with most of his Ron Dzwonkowski's opinion piece "RON DZWONKOWSKI: Cash 'n' politics" in today's Free Press.

This system is protected to a large extent by the First Amendment rights of free speech and petitioning the government "for a redress of grievances," which is the umbrella right for lobbying. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that campaigns can be regulated, but getting Congress or a state legislature to do so is like asking a junkie to slow down on the heroin. And every time there is a new limit or regulation enacted, it takes about one election for the folks with the money to figure a way to keep the!juice flowing.

So how can the public interest best be protected by this system, which, time and again, has given rise to crime and scandal in the form of votes and influence being bought and sold for personal gain?

The best defense the system allows is disclosure. Instant. You give, we know. Money spent? An open checkbook. Politicians may not be able to balance a budget, but most of them employ people who can keep track of a checkbook. Do it online for all political accounts and publish every transaction. Technology makes this possible. Instead of reports every six months, the PACs ought to be reporting every detail of activity within 24 hours. And no fake names. Let's require that the source and destination of all money moving for political purposes be clearly identifiable.

There's no way to get all the money out of the system, but there are ways for the public to know, at once, who's giving and who's taking. That will slow down the flow, guaranteed, because not all investors will want to be instantly exposed. But the less money available, the less the temptation for those who think a political career should be a ticket to Easy Street.

And that's the way it should be.

Those that know me know that I take campaign finance issues very seriously.

I've treasured several organizations over the years, including PAC's, candidate committees, and ballot question committees on the state level, so I speak from experience on this subject. I've never treasured a federal organization, but many of the general concepts are the same outside of that damn BICRA aka McCain/Feingold. All state level committees file with the Secretary of State and the federal organizations file with the FEC.

On the state level, we have the very user-unfriendly MERTS system for electronic filing required for all organizations which raise $20,000. I despise MERTS, but one of my committees may break the $20,000 mark next year, so I have to be ready.

Currently, Candidate committees, political parties, and ballot question committees are required to file pre-election reports 11 days before the election, post election reports 30 days after the election, and annual statements due January 31.

PAC's and "Independent Committees" (What large PAC's are called at the state level) are required to file triannual statements with the Sec of State. In even number years, those are April 25, July 25, and October 25. In odd number years, January 31, July 25, and October 25.

For all committees, late contribution reports are required for any donation between the 15th and 3rd day before an election. Those are not on campaign finance forms, and can be on plain paper. They just need to be sent to the Secretary of State's office 48 hours after the transaction.

Those all refer to Michigan law, not federal law.

Now these filings are a pain in the arse to put it mildly. I know that from firsthand experience. I understand and support these disclosure recommendations anyway. Every transaction I make I put in an excel file the day it happened. I can update it through MERTS at the same time if it's required, which saves work in the long run. Secondly, the one good thing about MERTS is that now the search function allows me to find out who donated to what if that committee goes through MERTZ. If the committee does not use MERTS, I can still find the donor records by searching through all the pages of the committee. That's a pain, but it's still possible. Part of my election decisions, especially in non-partisan elections, is based on the donations a candidate received. Someone who gived $10,000 to Ban all Guns PAC or Increase Taxes PAC is not going to get my vote. Campaign finance records give us all a chance to see who puts their money where their mouths are.

The problem under current law is that there is not much time between the election and the filing date. Currently, it's easy for us all to sandbag our records until right before the election. In fact, we have no choice due to the close of books dates which are usually a week before the due date. This is one of the main points Dzwonkowski raises, and one I agree with. 7-14 days is not a lot of time for me to research campaign records between a PAC filing, and the August Primary or November General Election.

Now PAC's are probably the least of the campaign finance problems today. PAC's are hard money, and it is illegal for corporate (both profit and non-profit) money to go to a PAC. There are also hard money limits for PAC's. $500 for Political and $5000 are the limits for Independent PAC's on the state level. There IS full disclosure required for PAC's as well. If we as voters make the effort (most don't, sad to say), we can find who donates to which committee.

The biggest problems we have are these 527's, 501c3's, 501c4's, and Foundations which do not have to give political reports. I don't know who donated to them. One of the very few things frequent commenter Kevin S. and I agree on is full disclosure online of the contributions and expenditures of these organizations. I don't support any censorship or limitations of grassroots participation like Mr. McCain does, but I do support full disclosure 100%. I have nothing to hide with my political donations or my donations to 527's/501c groups. Full disclosure will severely limit the money laundering, while still allow grassroots politics.

Lastly, to anyone considering a run for office, make sure you have a good treasurer who understands (or is willing to learn) campaign finance law. It's an extremely important, but often overlooked position. In my very own district, Rep Joe Hune's opponent in 2004, Edmund Senkowski did not file his campaign statements and owes over $3000 in fines. The treasurer there didn't do his job, and both he and Senkowski suffered because of it. My speculation is that he didn't know what he was doing.

Yes, it's that Joe Wilson, showing his face in Michigan. It's nice to know the type of characters that Mr. Marcinkowski associates with. He thinks so highly of Joe Wilson, that he's the star at his fundraisers.

And since I'm always accused by the democrat posters here of having the GOP talking points, I'll post a link to those as well, just for kicks.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A campaign fundraising group for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has agreed to a $35,000 fine for underreporting thousands of dollars spent on a lavish Hollywood fundraiser in 2000, the man who bankrolled the event said.

The organization, New York Senate 2000, agreed to a federal finding that it failed to report $721,895 spent on the fundraiser to boost the former first lady's campaign for Senate, according to paperwork provided by Peter F. Paul, who helped finance the star-studded gala that drew Cher, Diana Ross, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston.

Paul filed the initial complaint that led to the investigation, and on Thursday provided a copy of a signed agreement between New York Senate 2000 and the Federal Election Commission.

For all the Abramoff talk, I figure I'll post this here about the democrat's hero. I should also mention that Peter Paul is a three-time convicted felon.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Ingham County voters will to go to the polls for a special election to pick a state Senate replacement for Virg Bernero, who became mayor of Lansing on Sunday.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm on Tuesday called a special primary for Feb. 21 and a special general election for March 14.

She scheduled special elections for two House vacancies to coincide with the August primary and November general election.

Granholm just announced a special election for the state senate district in Ingham County. She also announced that special elections for two other vacancies (Phillips and Kehrl) in Pontiac and Monroe based house districts will coincide with the regular elections. All the vacancies were seats held by democrats. The Pontiac seat is solid democrat, and the Monroe seat is a toss-up.

Anything can happen in special elections due to low turnout. Paul Hackett nearly won an upset in a 60%+ GOP district with low turnout. Whoever shows up wins in cases like this. For that reason alone, I hope the GOP contests this seat and doesn't write it off. We need to take the fight on their home court, especially in special elections.

Four candidates have announced. One is rich leftist Gretchen Whitmer, who is a typical East Lansing style of democrat. She has millions and will try and buy this seat. Another democrat is Melissa Sue Robinson, formerly known as Charles Stralens. Robinson is a frequent candidate who runs in several elections.

On the GOP side, Attorney Vince Green and former Lansing City Councilwoman Geneva Smith are running. Green I've met before and is conservative. Former Rep. Paul DeWeese is his treasurer, so there is some backing there. I do not know anything about Smith.

At to the District itself, the big problem here is that some of the more friendly areas (Vevay, Mason, Stockbridge) in Ingham County are in Garcia's district due to poor redistricting planning. The district has a strong democrat lean, but it is more of an anti-Bush lean. Paul DeWeese had 46.64% and held Virg Bernero to 53.36% in a district Granholm ran ahead of John Kerry due to state workers and their anti-Engler attitude. In a special election, that could be a sleeper since low turnout is good for us here, just as it benefits democrats in Livingston County.

(CNSNews.com) -- Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich asserted Wednesday that the legacy of the "Contract With America" -- the agenda he promoted in 1994 that helped the GOP win both houses of Congress -- is "hanging in the balance" because of the scandal involving former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

"That's why I'm speaking out so strongly" on the scandal, Gingrich said to reporters after telling the Rotary Club of Washington, D.C., that Abramoff and any other persons convicted of breaking the law in the matter "should definitely go to jail."

Gingrich told reporters that the more he has "heard about the Abramoff scandal, the angrier I've gotten." The former speaker said he found particularly "troubling" the amounts of money being spent on Washington lobbyists, including more than $80 million by a Native American group.

The Republican Party should "face up to its mistakes" in the matter, he added. "To claim that Abramoff is just 'one bad apple' is foolishness. The GOP should not try to defend his actions in the scandal."""""""""""""""""

Gingrich also stated that Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who has been temporarily replaced as House majority leader, should rule out any chance of returning to the position "because he will be too busy defending himself" from charges associated with the scandal. "The House has many competent and talented people who can handle the job without becoming a distraction to the party," Gingrich said.

He also gave warned to what kind of reforms that will be pushed for. We don't need any "Keating Five" John McCain type of trash here attacking the grassroots. What will happen is predictable. McCain is going to try and make himself look like a hero to set up his 2008 run for tyrant, I mean president. He'll pass something protecting his buddies while screwing over the conservative grass roots based on the definition of a word shutting us out of the picture as much as possible. He'll give most of the power to the establishment press like the New York Slimes and K-street - doing exactly the opposite of what is intended. George Soros was the main benefactor of BCRA. (McCain/Feingold)

I'm not saying real reform isn't needed, but I don't want it coming from McCain, or from a current senator since 90% of the senate in both parties is a joke.

"I'll tell you what this city's first reaction is going to be," he stated. Lawmakers will "turn the scandal into lobbyist bashing, so the same system on the Hill that is unhealthy will protect itself by passing a narrowly drawn anti-lobbyist provision while the same people go to the same [Political Action Committee] fundraisers to raise the same money with the same cronies in the same manner."

Instead, "the Abramoff scandal has to be seen as part of a much larger and deeper problem," Gingrich asserted, before quoting Lord Acton's famous phrase: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

"This is a profound problem, not just a surface-level scandal," Gingrich said. As an example of the unfair advantage wealthy incumbents have in the electoral process, Gingrich referred to New Jersey Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine. "One person spent $100 million to first buy a Senate seat and then buy a governorship while voting for the McCain-Feingold bill to limit every middle-class citizen to $2,500 in an election," Gingrich said.

"There's something inherently wrong with that," Gingrich charged.

Gingrich also criticized lawmakers for "pouring millions of dollars into tax-exempt 527s" and using contributions from foreign governments and other entities to "build a wall of money to protect themselves from America," which he noted is "a bipartisan phenomenon.

""""""""""""""I don't care which party you're in; go look at where the U.S. senators get their money from," he said. "It ain't back home," which is "a serious, profound challenge" to the process of self-government.

"Lobbying is an honorable and legitimate function, but it should be transparent and accountable," Gingrich added. Also, "Americans should expect the majorities of the House and the Senate to put the country first and restrain or defeat those efforts at personal aggrandizement and personal power that undermine the effectiveness of limited government."

The Republican majority "arrived in Washington in 1994 as a reform party," the former speaker told reporters after his speech. "We accomplished a number of changes in the way the House is run.

Therefore, Gingrich's advice to the GOP this year was to return to the strategy that proved so successful 12 years ago. "Republicans should run as reformers who want to make government more effective and return to the concept of the balanced budget," which Congress accomplished for four years in the 1990s.

In doing so, "it will be necessary for Republicans to risk everything by trusting the American people." But if the GOP presses for "very real and substantial reform," the party could do very well in the fall," he said.""""""""""""""""

What's needed? I'd like to see a return to 1994's Contract with America. That's when we were at our peak, and also when we were our most conservative. The grassroots need to be empowered, now silenced. This would be the main points of my own bill.

1. Repeal CFR and McCain/Feingold2. Require full disclosure of 527's the same way as a PAC. Soros types launder millions through them. 3. Take a close look at 501c3 and 501c4 organizations and require full disclosure of any $1000 or more donation to them. That's a laundering trick used by Soros types as well. 4. Full disclosure of any organization a registered lobbiest represents and their past employment to any governmental office, 527, 501c3/4, or PAC.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Gun Owners across the state owe a debt to (unfortunately term limited) State Rep Leon Drolet (R - Macomb County) and to our AG Mike Cox. Cox promised us reciprocity of conceal carry in his 2002 elections and kept his promise many times over for us. For those that do not know what I am referring to, that means many other states now recognize our CPL permits.

A person in Michigan may only possess a machine gun if it was lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986, and is properly registered under federal law. A person in Michigan may only transfer possession of a machine gun if authorized to do so by the federal Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

You have asked whether a person[1] in Michigan may transfer possession of a federally registered machine gun.

Possession of a machine gun by a person in Michigan is controlled by section 224 of the Michigan Penal Code, MCL 750.224:

(1) A person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or possess any of the following:

(a) A machine gun or firearm that shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than 1 shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

* * *

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A self-defense spray device as defined in section 224d.

(b) A person manufacturing firearms, explosives, or munitions of war by virtue of a contract with a department of the government of the United States.

(c) A person licensed by the secretary of the treasury of the United States or the secretary's delegate[[2]] to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun, or a device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance described in subsection (1). [Emphasis added.]

Of greatest relevance to your question is the exception stated in subsection 3(c) above. Michigan law, therefore, prohibits the possession of a machine gun by a person unless that person has been "licensed" by the United States Government to manufacture, sell, or possess the weapon.

To determine how one becomes "licensed" by the federal government, the governing provision is subsection (o) of section 922 of the federal Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), 18 USC 922(o). That subsection states in relevant part:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to--

* * *

(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect [effective May 19, 1986]. [18 USC 922(o)(1) and (2)(B).]

After enactment of the FOPA, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives promulgated implementing regulations permitting private ownership of a machine gun under specified circumstances. One of those regulations, 27 CFR 479.105, provides:

(a) General. As provided by 26 U.S.C. 5812 and 26 U.S.C. 5822, an application to make or transfer a firearm shall be denied if the making, transfer, receipt, or possession of the firearm would place the maker or transferee in violation of law. . . .

(b) Machine guns lawfully possessed prior to May 19, 1986. A machine gun possessed in compliance with the provisions of this part prior to May 19, 1986, may continue to be lawfully possessed by the person to whom the machine gun is registered and may, upon compliance with the provisions of this part, be lawfully transferred to and possessed by the transferee.

Thus, under federal law, a person may possess a machine gun if that person lawfully possessed it before May 19, 1986, or if the person is one to whom a person in lawful possession lawfully transferred possession after that date. Another regulation, 27 CFR 479.84, generally prohibits the transfer of a firearm "unless an application, Form 4 (Firearms), Application for Transfer and Registration of Firearm, in duplicate, executed under the penalties of perjury to transfer the firearm and register it to the transferee has been filed with and approved by the Director [of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives]." The regulation further requires that the application provide a complete description of the firearm and detailed identification of both parties to the transfer. Under the current Form 4 (copy attached), the transferee is required to certify whether the transferee has been convicted of or is facing criminal felony charges, whether the transferee is a fugitive, illegal alien, addicted to controlled substances, subject to a domestic relations restraining order, has received a military dishonorable discharge, has been adjudicated mentally defective, or has been convicted of domestic violence. An affirmative answer to any of these questions results in a denial of the application. Another regulation, 27 CFR 479.85, requires that the application include the transferee's photograph and set of fingerprints. The application must also be certified by the appropriate state or local law enforcement official as to whether the official has any information indicating that the machine gun will be used for other than a lawful purpose or that possession of the gun by the transferee would be in violation of state or federal law. 27 CFR 479.85. The Form 4 application is then reviewed by the Director and, if approved, is returned to the transferor who may then transfer the weapon. The transferee is required to retain the approved Form 4 application as proof that the firearm is properly registered. 27 CFR 479.86.

In light of this federal regulatory background, it must next be determined whether this federal approval process culminates in the issuance of a "license" for purposes of the exception to the prohibition on the possession of a machine gun found in MCL 750.224.

The foremost rule in construing a statute is to discern and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Nastal v Henderson & Associates Investigations, Inc, 471 Mich 712, 720; 691 NW2d 1 (2005). The first step in ascertaining that intent is to review the language of the statute. The plain meaning of the critical word itself as well as its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme must be considered. Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 236-237; 596 NW2d 119 (1999).

[A] license means "to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do." 33 Am Jur, "Licenses," § 2, p 325.

"The object of a license is to confer a right that does not exist without a license." Chilvers v. People, 11 Mich 43, 49.

"The popular understanding of the word license undoubtedly is, a permission to do something which without the license would not be allowable. . . ." Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich 406, 419 (20 Am Rep 654).

The general understanding of a license is stated in Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed), p 1425, as follows:

"License, license, n * * * Authority or liberty given to do or forebear any act; permission to do something.

Although the application and registration scheme provided for under the federal laws and regulations discussed above do not result in the issuance of a document labeled "license,"[3] the Form 4 application and resulting approval process bears all the hallmarks of licensure. The permission granted by the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to transfer and possess a machine gun is the official authority required in order to avoid the federal proscription. Absent such approval, a person possessing a machine gun would be subject to serious sanctions, including prosecution and incarceration under both federal and state law. See 18 USC 924 and MCL 750.224(2).

Moreover, there is no indication in the plain text of MCL 750.224 that the Legislature intended the word "license" to have a meaning other than its ordinary meaning as described by the Court in Bostrom. Its purpose in the statutory scheme appears to be to assure that only those persons receiving the proper authorization from the appropriate federal officials are allowed to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun. The statute does not focus on the particular title or name given to that authorizing instrument. Accordingly, the authorization provided under the federal regulatory scheme embodied in 18 USC 922(o) and related regulations constitutes a "license" within the meaning of MCL 750.224.[4]

It is my opinion, therefore, that a person in Michigan may only possess a machine gun if it was lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986, and is properly registered under federal law. A person in Michigan may only transfer possession of a machine gun if authorized to do so by the federal Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

MIKE COXAttorney General

[1] Because your request only concerns private individuals, this opinion does not address any other classes of persons, such as law enforcement officers and military personnel.

[2] The historical responsibility of the Secretary of Treasury of the United States to regulate firearms through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was transferred by Congress to the United States Attorney General by Public Law No 107-296, Title XI, Subtitle B, § 1112(f)(4), (6), 116 Stat 2276 (2002).

[4] OAG, 1977-1978, No 5210, p 189 (August 10, 1977), reached the opposite conclusion on this question. However, at the time that opinion was issued, MCL 750.224 allowed a person to possess a machine gun if the person was "duly licensed to manufacture, sell, or possess any machine gun." As that opinion noted, when MCL 750.224 was amended in 1959, the Legislature considered a companion bill to license the possession of machine guns. The opinion concluded that the failure to enact the bill was evidence that no law existed to allow for the possession of a machine gun. The opinion further noted that then existing federal law only provided for the registration and not the licensing of machine guns. As discussed above, Congress subsequently enacted legislation authorizing the Director of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to formally approve the possession of certain machine guns. Moreover, soon after the issuance of OAG No 5210, the Legislature amended MCL 750.224 by 1978 PA 564 to specifically recognize an exception for a license issued by the United States Government. The Attorney General was also quick to recognize that with the amendment, the machine gun prohibition in MCL 750.224 did not apply to a person duly licensed by the Secretary of Treasury of the United States or the Secretary's delegate to possess a machine gun. Letter opinion of the Attorney General to Phillip Price, Chief, National Firearms Act Branch, United States Department of Treasury, dated April 25, 1979. Accordingly, OAG No 5210 is superseded by this opinion.

(e) A device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance designed to render a person temporarily or permanently disabled by the ejection, release, or emission of a gas or other substance.

(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A self-defense spray device as defined in section 224d.

(b) A person manufacturing firearms, explosives, or munitions of war by virtue of a contract with a department of the government of the United States.

(c) A person licensed by the secretary of the treasury of the United States or the secretary's delegate to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun, or a device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance described in subsection (1).

(4) As used in this chapter, “muffler” or “silencer” means 1 or more of the following:

(a) A device for muffling, silencing, or deadening the report of a firearm.

(b) A combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a muffler or silencer.

(c) A part, designed or redesigned, and intended only for use in assembling or fabricating a muffler or silencer.

The plain language of 750.224(3)(c) seems to allow anyone who goes through the Form 4 process to possess any of the items listed in 750.224(1), including a silencer. However, a court might interpret it to mean that a person can possess only whichever of the items comes under the federal license, to-wit: the full auto firearm.

Now there still is bad news for those who want to buy a full-auto firearm thanks to extremely strict Federal Laws. A Class III license by the BATF is still required and has been since 1934. And while some of the draconian restrictions by the 1968 gun control act were repealed in 1986, part of a last minute compromise banned the manufacturer of full-autos to the general public - so all legal full-auto firearms. Never mind the fact, that only one Class III firearm owner committed a crime in over 50 years - and that was a cop.

That's not to mention "Form 4", which is required by the BATF due the the National Firearms Act of 1934. That means either the local Chief of Police, Sheriff, MSP boss (riiiight), State AG, Prosecutor (I'd like to have a video camera if someone asks Mr. Morse just to see his reaction), or some other law enforcement official acceptable to the BATF. There's also a $200 transfer fee.

I know some anti-gunners like bigmouth L Brooks Patterson are going to give the old "Dodge City" song and dance once again, as they do every time. Once again, "Dodge City" won't happen here, as this is not happening in all the other states which allow Class III firearms. One time in 70 years. That's a good track record.

Thank you Rep. Drolet and AG Cox. You did your part. Now I'd like to see the 1986 ban repealed at the federal level.

Monday, January 02, 2006

Kerry Seems to Be Positioning Self for 2008 Presidential BidWASHINGTON — It's almost as if Sen. John Kerry never stopped running for president.

He still jets across the country, raising millions of dollars and rallying Democrats. He still stalks the TV news show circuit, scolding President Bush at every turn.

His campaign Web site boasts of an online army of 3 million supporters.

The Massachusetts Democrat, defeated by Bush in 2004, insists it is far too early to talk about the 2008 race, but some analysts assume he has already positioning himself for another shot at the White House.

This guy was supposed to be the electable choice in 2004. The first choice for most of the left was Howard Dean. Dean fizzled in Iowa with a couple of foot in mouth quotes, and the left panicked and settled for the "electable" Kerry (who I thought was the weakest of the "first tier" candidates with Clark the strongest). We all know what happened with John Kerry.

So all I have to say is...Run Johnny! With a list of candidates likely to include Mark Warner or Bill Richardson, there are much tougher democrats than John Kerry.

And it wasn't in the police blotter either. Welcome to our Argus Readers here on all sides of the spectrum.

Dan Meisler wrote a story on this site. He didn't do a bad job on it, either. It's good timing since political news has been slow lately over the holidays, and the Lions have been too depressing to write about.

I'm glad this quote made the paper. "The Republican Michigander is conservative first, Republican second." On that level, I'd like to place a plug in for South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford in 2008. Draft Sanford in 2008. Sanford's a republican, but would be a strong change over the current big spending in Washington and goes back to the Republican roots of 1994. Sanford has my vote if he runs. John McCain's another story.

That quote may be foreshadowing of things to come here in Livingston County if some tax increases are in the works as rumored. Those will get wide coverage in this blog if the rumors are true. The Concerned Taxpayers Group of Livingston County (famous or infamous for defeating the May 3 millage in 05) is also re-activating and will also be on the case as well if need be. The Concerned Taxpayers Group has strong support here. Our economy can not afford more taxes at this time. I don't want to jump the gun, but stay tuned for developments on this, since I expect something to happen there.

There's only one real mistake in the story.

The site also includes detailed political descriptions of all Michigan counties.

Dan Meisler jumped the gun and gave me too much credit here. I'm only about halfway done with them. They will be done at some point, and then updated eventually after 2006. I'm finished up through Monroe, and jumped ahead to Oakland earlier.

For our visitors, my comment policy here is lenient. This isn't a free-speech site in the truest sense, but I usually don't delete posts. The only ones I've deleted so far are advertising spambots who should be horsewhipped. 99% of the time I won't delete comments because of a political view. The 1% is reserved for America haters, Nazis, race/ethnic baiting, bigots, X-rated language (ladies read the site), and stuff like that. That'll get picked off faster than a Detroit Lions' pass.

Debate's good, although I don't have time to answer every comment. I encourage candidates to post here. The more information we know about them, the better for us as voters and activists. TV ad's don't tell us anything.

There may be a blockbuster post soon on the senate race here (which I've planned for about a month), so stay tuned.

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Regardless of political leanings, we all agree that things are going to heat up this election year. It's starting early too.

I don't know the filing deadlines offhand for February and May elections. I believe the deadline is in the first week of February for the May elections (School board), but don't take my word for it.

Important Dates to Remember:

January 2 - New Mayors sworn in. Virg Bernero and Clarence Phillips are leaving the Michigan Legislature. Both of them are democrats bringing the vacancy number to 3. Granholm can call special elections to replace those seats or wait until August and November. We'll be following this very closely.

January 31 - Annual campaign finance reports are due for candidates, parties, and ballot question committees.

February 7 - Filing deadline for School Board races.

February 17 - Pre-election campaign statement due (If there's a February election).

February 28 - Possible Election Day

March 27 - Filing Deadline for most judicial incumbents running for re-election.

March 30 - Post-election campaign statement due (If there's a February Election)

April 21 - Pre-election campaign statement due (If there's a May Election)

April 25 - Triannual campaign statements due for PAC's

May 2 - Possible Election Day. In Livingston County, most school elections are in May.

May 2 - Filing deadline for most judicial candidates in August Primary.

May 16 - Filing deadline for precinct delegate and partisan candidates in August Primary. May 19 is withdraw deadline.

May 16 - Petitions for County and Local ballot questions for August Primary due. (Unless earlier local law)

May 31 - Petitions due for statewide ballot initiatives on November ballot.

June 1 - Post-election campaign statement due (If there's a May election)

July 10 - Petitions for State Constitution Amendments on November ballot due.

July 20 - Filing Deadline for candidates without party affiliation in November General Election. July 24 - withdraw deadline.

July 25 - Triannual campaign statements due for PAC's

August 4 - Write-in Candidates file Declaration of Intent forms for August Primary

August 8 - Primary Election - In most Michigan municipalities, the primary election IS the real election due to one party domination. In Livingston County, most races are decided here outside of Putnam and Unadilla townships.

August 15 - Petitions for County and Local questions for November General Election due. (Unless earlier local law)

September 7 - Post-election campaign statement due

October 10 - Last day to register to vote in the general election.

October 25 - Triannual campaign statements due for PAC's

November 3 - Write-in Candidates file Declaration of Intent forms for November General Election.